Ian's Contact Sheets

[FishyFish]

Got to admit that I'm a little bit jealous of your results from expired Ekta.

I have to say I've been very pleased with the results I've gotten - moreso that the roll of new Ektachrome I shot last year.

 

[Harlequin565]

A roll of Lomochrome Metropolis from the kickstarter last year. There is also a B&W roll but I'm not posting it to avoid spoiling my zine.

I do have a roll of MF that is also with AG but I didn't opt for scans because I can get decent MF scans myself and I strenuously object to paying extra for MF scans that are *smaller* than 35mm ones!!

Leica M6 with the tiny Voigtlander 35mm Ultron


This roll shot at 200. Scans straight from AG this afternoon. A test roll really. Taken me a while to shoot it.
IM (humble) O, this film doesn't like shadows much and I'd use the word "fugly" to describe them. Fortunately, judicious noise reduction can make it bearable. I'm not sure if these Lomo films are designed for people who want "the lomo look" to their images and whilst I like the colour rendition (kudos to AG for the scans) I'm not keen on the image quality. The little Ultron lens is a belter normally, and whilst the sharpness is there, the.... makeup... of the image feels a bit substandard... Maybe the MF scans will be better, although I kinda hope not because I just sold all my MF to Chris...

Note to self - shoot the next roll at 100.

IN terms of images, there's nothing really outstanding here. The hip shot street work was really poor. I'd like to complain that it was peeing it down and I didn't want to get the camera wet, but to be honest, I just wasn't feeling it. The river bike ride was nice, but I shot the 645n alongside the M6 and much prefer the results from the same day of the same stuff. And finally, Autumnal trees aren't a good idea for a film with a colour shift like this. Not in my mind anyways.

 

[Harlequin565]

Picked up a bit of an extravagant comfort pressie to self. A Canon EOS-1v. By the gods it's gorgeous. Auto everything and solid as a rock. Big difference to the EOS-30. The AF is a bit quicker with more points, and it feels more solid in the hand. But it's bigger, heavier and noisier than the EOS-30. I'm glad I have both to choose from

Test roll, which I really enjoyed. Mostly with the Sigma 50 f/1.4 ART and the 24mm f/2.8. HP5 Plus at 800 in HC-110 (B)



Nothing exciting to write home about but to be honest, this is my kind of photography. If the recent zine exhange has taught me anything, it's that everyone has a very different view of life. I know Matt Day did a whole "documenting your life" thing a while back, and I think it's been rattling around in my head for months.

That Sigma lens is just beautiful too. Forum compression has softened this, but the print looks lovely.

 

[Mr Badger]

Glad it works OK. Sounds a bit like a heavyweight version of the EOS-3 from your description, but without the 45 point eye-selectable AF system (that almost certainly won't work for you if you wear glasses and can't find full functionality with the 7 point ECF on the ESO 30), so no loss for you there. I'd agree with your summary too... Mind you, that's one of the things I quite like about the EOS 30, it looks and feels a bit like a mid-range 'keen amateur' type camera but, oh boy, does it punch above it's weight in real-life use!

I'd be interested to know how the 1v compares against the 30 in low/minimal light in terms of focus acquisition. I believe the 30v has an improved AF system, which rumour had it, was derived/taken from the 1v, but I've not noticed a huge difference in everyday use between my 30v and 30.

As for the cat photos... it's definitely thinking "Are you going to give me a fuss like I deserve, or just stand there clicking that stupid thing in front of your face?! *pulls ear back to register displeasure at your performance* Bored now!"

 

[Harlequin565]

I'd be interested to know how the 1v compares against the 30 in low/minimal light in terms of focus acquisition.

No noticeable difference as far as I can tell. Most "low light" for me is messing about with the Sigma 50 under lamp light in the house. Both cameras find focus fine.
One issue I have with the 30 is its habit of a sticky mirror after taking a shot. Off/On cycling fixes it but it's mildly annoying. Thought it was batteries and changed them but it's still happening...

Agree on the eye-AF. I can't get used to it on the 30. Not sure if it's my specs, or the user behind them, but I've just gone for standard centre point AF & recompose. So when it was a choice between the 3 or the 1v, I went the extra because eye-AF wasn't a must have.

 

[Mr Badger]

No noticeable difference as far as I can tell. Most "low light" for me is messing about with the Sigma 50 under lamp light in the house. Both cameras find focus fine.
One issue I have with the 30 is its habit of a sticky mirror after taking a shot. Off/On cycling fixes it but it's mildly annoying. Thought it was batteries and changed them but it's still happening...

Agree on the eye-AF. I can't get used to it on the 30. Not sure if it's my specs, or the user behind them, but I've just gone for standard centre point AF & recompose. So when it was a choice between the 3 or the 1v, I went the extra because eye-AF wasn't a must have.

I've not (touch wood) had a sticky mirror issue with either of my two 30s or my 30v, so it might be a good time to get a spare 30 while they're still reasonably affordable/cheap, and factor in a CLA service for your existing one before our 'Uncle Miles' retires?

 

[FishyFish]

Always good to see Monkey, Cats, and chickens (both live and inanimate) make an appearance Ian.

Really nice contrast on these - is this how they came out, or have you done some additional PP on them?

 

[Harlequin565]

Always good to see Monkey, Cats, and chickens (both live and inanimate) make an appearance Ian.

Really nice contrast on these - is this how they came out, or have you done some additional PP on them?

My PP is almost always crop, sharpen, noise reduction and done. It's the main reason I shoot film I think the contrast probably comes from the 1 stop push.

 

[sirch]

Great clarity and contrast in those shots Ian, I've never tried HP5 at 800 but I like the look

 

[Harlequin565]

So as mentioned on the DD-X thread, I put a roll of HP5 through my 1v trying to just get out and shoot some pictures.

Shot at 1600, I developed in DD-X and am very surprised by the cleanliness of the results. One thing I did note though was that I was expecting much more contrast with a 2 stop push than I ended up getting. Not sure if that was because of the developer, or the scenes, but the quality of the images was excellent (even if the subject matter was a bit pants)



Cats and local village scenes. Still I've got a nice poster image to go behind my shoulder as a backdrop for Teams meetings...

 

[FishyFish]

My reason for asking about the contrast in your roll of HP5+ @800 in HC110 ties into what you've said about the DD-X roll. I don't get notably increased contrast when pushing HP5+ and then devving in DD-X either. I still usually add some contrast afterwards in PP - which I prefer as I can always add contrast in, but can't really take it out if it's baked into the negative.

I use a fairly gentle inversion method when devving my film, so that probably keeps excessive contrast down too I suppose.

I shot a roll of 120 HP5+ at 1600asa yesterday, so I'll be interested to see how those look in comparison with the 135 I've shot at the same speed.

 

[Harlequin565]

I still usually add some contrast afterwards in PP - which I prefer as I can always add contrast in, but can't really take it out if it's baked into the negative.

Very valid point.

I shot a roll of 120 HP5+ at 1600asa yesterday, so I'll be interested to see how those look in comparison with the 135 I've shot at the same speed.

I think there's a huge difference in perceived grain between 120 and 135. I have shot HP5 at 800 in 120 previously and developed in HC-110 and it looks fab. I don't think I've gone to 1600 in 120 but you've got me thinking now

 

[Harlequin565]

So, Tri-X @ 1600 in DD-X with the Canon EOS-1v.



Not a good result. I know the camera meters ok, so this must have been development. MDC stated 14min in 1+4 DD-X. The blacks are all lifted and yet the images are under-exposed. Grain looks lovely, but if I was shooting Tri-X and DD-X again, I'd want to do some short test rolls to get the development right. Got 2 nice camera portraits out of it and the pumpkin in the woods.

Also, as we're in November, I'm starting to think about making my 2020 contact sheet book. It'll be a Blrub thing I think as there will only be 1 copy made.

 

[FishyFish]

So, Tri-X @ 1600 in DD-X with the Canon EOS-1v.

View attachment 298480

Not a good result. I know the camera meters ok, so this must have been development. MDC stated 14min in 1+4 DD-X. The blacks are all lifted and yet the images are under-exposed. Grain looks lovely, but if I was shooting Tri-X and DD-X again, I'd want to do some short test rolls to get the development right. Got 2 nice camera portraits out of it and the pumpkin in the woods.

Also, as we're in November, I'm starting to think about making my 2020 contact sheet book. It'll be a Blrub thing I think as there will only be 1 copy made.

Most of those don't look too bad - in contact sheet form at least. #22 looks underexposed, but the rest don't appear too bad from here. From what I've seen (on Flickr and similar sites), Tri-X hits the contrast pretty hard when pushed and doesn't seem to retain shadow detail anything like as much as HP5+ does. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - I've seen some great, high-contrast Tri-X shots. I think your camera portraits suit the look too.

 

[Harlequin565]

Some Ektachrome through my EOS-30. Was a few weeks ago I started this, and really a second visit to E100 after my 1st roll of 35mm didn't go so well.
Still not really happy with the greens and I'm sure it's the scanner, because when I look at the transparency they don't look like that.
Also - to anyone who knows - is there a "right way round" for scanning E6? some of these feel a little soft, but it could have been the 24mm f/2.8 which is from the 80s and was probably wide open.


Also feels a little muted and needed a fair bit of tweaking in LR to make it look nice. Still I got a few shots I quite liked.

 

[FishyFish]

They might not be right, but I like the tones in there Ian. There's an autumnal feel to them - not just the leaves. The latter shots give the feel of a murky day as the leaves begin to fall and we edge into winter.

If I'm using my Plustek, I always scan things right-way-up (so you can read the edge markings). I do it for both reversal and positive film. Ektachrome - the new stuff at least - has been a bit of a sod to scan for me too. Similarly, the greens have a petrol-blue sort of feel to them in some of my shots.

 

[Mr Badger]

It's shiny side down for scanning film on my Epson V600 flatbed. I think E100 is more for sunny days, so I've just put my spare roll in the freezer to tide it over until next year. Have you got yourself sorted out with a projector yet? If so, do the greens look better on that?

 

[Harlequin565]

Similarly, the greens have a petrol-blue sort of feel to them in some of my shots.

That's exactly how I felt.

It's shiny side down for scanning film on my Epson V600 flatbed. I think E100 is more for sunny days, so I've just put my spare roll in the freezer to tide it over until next year. Have you got yourself sorted out with a projector yet? If so, do the greens look better on that?

The E100 looks the same on both sides to me. And lol projector. I think that was a fad. I really don't make enough slides to warrant it. A Projector Party would be fun though.

 

[Mr Badger]

That's exactly how I felt.



The E100 looks the same on both sides to me. And lol projector. I think that was a fad. I really don't make enough slides to warrant it. A Projector Party would be fun though.

I've a spare 35mm projector sitting in a box in the garage if you want it for free? Nothing special, a Boots own brand (made by Hanimex, I think) but it works, or did last time I plugged it in. If it's any use to you then let me know?

 

[Harlequin565]

I've a spare 35mm projector sitting in a box in the garage if you want it for free? Nothing special, a Boots own brand (made by Hanimex, I think) but it works, or did last time I plugged it in. If it's any use to you then let me know?

Very kind of you, but realistically, it would probably end up in my garage unused!

 

[Harlequin565]

So this is my second roll of E100 which I scanned last night. And I was gutted.



Not only has one frame been trimmed off incorrectly (9) but all the ones with sky in them show a filthy dust stained mess.

The sky in fram 3:


Or how about these marks on frame 4



Or this on frame 8


And the icing on the cake... A nice finger print in the upper right corner...


AG have been very apologetic, but there is literally nothing they can do about it now. It's almot like this roll fell on the floor and was picked up by someone walking past...

I got a couple of good images on the roll but it's been a bit overshadowed by the state of the negatives. I think that's enough for me to give up on slides and just use Filmdev.

Also need to find a new lab

 

[Mr Badger]

That's terrible, like you say, it looks like someone has dropped them on the floor. I hope they'll refund some money as a gesture of goodwill?

 

[Harlequin565]

That's terrible, like you say, it looks like someone has dropped them on the floor. I hope they'll refund some money as a gesture of goodwill?

Yep. They have.

 

[Mr Badger]

At least that's something. I have to say the one roll of E100 I sent them for process, scan and mount last year came back spotless and perfectly mounted. However, if standards start to slip then I'm not sure I'd want to trust them with the next roll, as due to the price of the film and the cost of developing, I'm keeping it for 'best' and I don't want my best photos messing up by the lab!

 

[sirch]

Very annoying, you would expect much better from any professional lab. Refunds don't really do anything to replace the time and effort that you put in, not to mention the disappointment.

 

[FishyFish]

I'm guessing the refund didn't cover the cost of the film? I'd have been similarly upset I think, not only the cost of the film, but also - as Chris says - the fact that there are other unrecoverable elements that can't be refunded.

 

[Harlequin565]

I'm guessing the refund didn't cover the cost of the film? I'd have been similarly upset I think, not only the cost of the film, but also - as Chris says - the fact that there are other unrecoverable elements that can't be refunded.

Yep. Just the 'services' they provided - and to be fair, the film isn't ruined. I had a long think about this and to be honest, there is nothing anyone can do once it's happened and no amount of money is recompense. But if I suspend my outrage for a sec, I am not a professional photographer, and I haven't lost thousands of pounds in income. People make mistakes and accidents happen. Matt at AG has sent me a couple of emails today that feel (to me) as though it really is a one-off. It's kinda what stopped me from kicking off an "I hate MPB" replica thread with another title.

If anyone needs an example of how to deal with a complaint, then AG can stand tall. There is nothing that will ameliorate how I feel, but Matt really tried - and empathised with me, which I very much appreciated. It's why I've decided to give them one more go.

It's difficult to decide on the financial compensation for this when I'm a hobbyist. And as I said to Matt, I am not really that bothered about the cost, I just want a service that works. It's a very difficult one. My wife read the emails and said "he sounds like a nice man" then gave me a hug. I think that was what tipped the balance. there are perhaps bigger things to worry about at the moment.

Maybe I should just have a biscuit...

 

[FishyFish]

Yep. Just the 'services' they provided - and to be fair, the film isn't ruined. I had a long think about this and to be honest, there is nothing anyone can do once it's happened and no amount of money is recompense. But if I suspend my outrage for a sec, I am not a professional photographer, and I haven't lost thousands of pounds in income. People make mistakes and accidents happen. Matt at AG has sent me a couple of emails today that feel (to me) as though it really is a one-off. It's kinda what stopped me from kicking off an "I hate MPB" replica thread with another title.

If anyone needs an example of how to deal with a complaint, then AG can stand tall. There is nothing that will ameliorate how I feel, but Matt really tried - and empathised with me, which I very much appreciated. It's why I've decided to give them one more go.

It's difficult to decide on the financial compensation for this when I'm a hobbyist. And as I said to Matt, I am not really that bothered about the cost, I just want a service that works. It's a very difficult one. My wife read the emails and said "he sounds like a nice man" then gave me a hug. I think that was what tipped the balance. there are perhaps bigger things to worry about at the moment.

Maybe I should just have a biscuit...

View attachment 298788

If they handled the complaint properly, then good on them. How people respond to problems says a lot about them.

I once had an issue with some scans from Filmdev - something that I admitted to them might have been due to a film fault - and they were very good about that, even going so far as to re-scan the negs on the Frontier (the original set were from their Noritsu) to see if it would improve the results. Good service generally encourages repeat custom I find, so I'm glad that your customer service from AG has been like that.

 

[Mr Badger]

Yep. Just the 'services' they provided - and to be fair, the film isn't ruined. I had a long think about this and to be honest, there is nothing anyone can do once it's happened and no amount of money is recompense. But if I suspend my outrage for a sec, I am not a professional photographer, and I haven't lost thousands of pounds in income. People make mistakes and accidents happen. Matt at AG has sent me a couple of emails today that feel (to me) as though it really is a one-off. It's kinda what stopped me from kicking off an "I hate MPB" replica thread with another title.

If anyone needs an example of how to deal with a complaint, then AG can stand tall. There is nothing that will ameliorate how I feel, but Matt really tried - and empathised with me, which I very much appreciated. It's why I've decided to give them one more go.

It's difficult to decide on the financial compensation for this when I'm a hobbyist. And as I said to Matt, I am not really that bothered about the cost, I just want a service that works. It's a very difficult one. My wife read the emails and said "he sounds like a nice man" then gave me a hug. I think that was what tipped the balance. there are perhaps bigger things to worry about at the moment.

Maybe I should just have a biscuit...

View attachment 298788

I think that's a well balanced response to a well balanced response. Mistakes and errors do sometimes happen (that's probably how we ended up with Covid 19!) so in the great scheme of things it's annoying rather than earth shattering. Hopefully AG will review their quality control so this sort of thing won't happen again.

 

[Harlequin565]

THis is the last of the colour films back from AG. This time, Lomochrome Metropolis in 120 shot through the RB67



This isn't in order. Quite pleased with frame 4, even though I over exposed most of the roll. Easily rescued in LR. Frame 6 I've done better with other cameras. Quite like the 6x7 framing though. Yeah... I don't think this film is for me, so I'm glad it's gone to a better home.

 

[Harlequin565]

So this was a super quick turnaround from AG.... I wonder why?

EOS-30 with Lomo 800. I remember telling myself "just buy this and use it as 400 colour if you need to". It came back in stock recently at AW, so I picked up a couple of triple packs, This was my first roll through before the autumnal colour dies.



I knew I'd never get a proper fire, so was always looking for nice leaf colour against a flat sky. I'm not super happy with it, but won't have anything else in time. Frames 14 & 15 were shameless copies inspirations of the recent @Allan.H zine I received in the zine swap. All our roads are named after trees, so getting the nameplate alongside a tree is my goal. Also frame 12. CHristmas lights going up already!!!!

Really happy with Lomo 800 as a film, and it'll sit alongside my Gold and Color Plus as faves for colour work.

 

[sirch]

I'm glad you showed #11 larger I couldn't see what it was from the contact sheet, the colours look good.

 

[Harlequin565]

I'm glad you showed #11 larger I couldn't see what it was from the contact sheet, the colours look good.

Thanks Chris. Yeah, the colours are really nice and straightforward which I like.

 

[Mr Badger]

Your post reminded me about Lomo 800 so I thought I'd try some at long last... Sold Out! B*gger!

 

[Harlequin565]

Bah... thread overload. One roll of HP5 @1600 through my Automat.

I have a love/hate relationship with this camera. The WLF is quite gloomy which makes focussing it quite difficult. I need glasses to focus, but then I can't read the aperture dial so glasses off. Obviously there's no meter so that's another thing to get in the way.

But the output is lovely, and the lens is very nice.

So I put a final roll through it before deciding whether to sell it, or get it serviced as the transport is a little grindy and the shutter button is a bit sticky.



I'm keeping it so it got parcelled up this morning and has been sent for a bit of TLC.

Quite like frames 4 & 6 and my two barmpot cats in frame 7 make me chuckle. Last three frames wasted so I could get it out of the camera and developed. HP5 in DD-X sure does look nice.

 

[FishyFish]

I've used the 100 and 400asa variants of Lomography Color Negative, but not the 800asa version. Of the two I've used I really like the 400asa. I'm in two minds about the 100asa version so far but I've only shot a single roll of it to date, so I need to give it a proper chance. It's nice enough, but it doesn't seem to pop in the same way the 400 does.

Glad you're liking the results from the DD-X. I've just ordered a fresh bottle, my fourth this year. Maybe not the most economical choice of developer, but I've been really happy with it so far.

 

[Harlequin565]

Washi F. My second roll this year which is a real surprise...

Mamiya RB67, Washi-F, HC-110(B) 9 minutes


Interesting roll this. First, it was shot at 400, not 100. Second, frames 5-9 were metered with a handheld Sekonic 308 using incident metering. Frames 1-4 were shot back in early summer and metered with the Minolta Spotmeter. I don't know why the metering was so far out! I can only surmise... Frame 10 was a rush shot when I realised I needed to be home really quick so I snapped it and hurried home.

So why were the exposures so different?
1. My metering is bad.
2. There has been slow light leaking into the back over the last 5-6 months
3. Something is wrong with the lens that took the first few frames (aperture stuck open, or shutter slow)
4. The light on the day I took the 4 frames was bright sun, the rest was a gloomy day. Perhaps (as it's x-ray film) it requires different exposures depending on the available light - a bit like IR.

Either way, I had forgotten that I really love the look of this film. The lack of anti-halation layer really gives everything a lovely soft glow and apart from 1, 2 and 10, all the images really appeal to me. I think I'm going to crack out the printer and do myself a big print.

Atmosphere. That's what this film adds to a scene. Perfect for this time of year when the leaves are gone and everything is miserable and wet.

Note to self: From what I can tell, HC-110(A) which is what Lomig gives times for in the data sheet for this film, is double the concentration of HC-110(B). So instead of trying to rush a 4:30 development on A (1+15), I doubled the development time and halved the concentration. HC-110(B) for 9 minutes is bob on. Next trial will be with DD-X, but there are not imes for that so I'll trial a 35mm roll on it, because these MF negs look lovely.

 

[Mr Badger]

Are you certain you set the meter to 400 ISO and didn't leave it on (the possible start up default of?) 100 ISO?

 

[Harlequin565]

Are you certain you set the meter to 400 ISO and didn't leave it on (the possible start up default of?) 100 ISO?

I'm not really certain of anything these days...
It's more likely my metering was up the spout when I was using the spot meter than the Sekonic. I try to get all clever averaging readings and my brain just isn't that big. I could use the meter, but I forgot how to do it...

 

[FishyFish]

It certainly has a distinctive look to it Ian. Kinda halfway between infra-red and blizzard.

I think woodland - especially the uniformly straight trunks of conifers - works well as a subject for the bright frames. I had a look on Flickr too and there are some interesting, brighly glowing portraits on there by other photographers which look pretty nice,

I'm curious about the horizontal branches in #6. Are they from a fallen tree or something?